A wonderful modern English-language article on flying the IL-2 Sturmovik

[Venturi]

One of only two known flying examples, restored by WW2 aviation enthusiasts in the West... and flown by Steve Hinton...

 

BTW, no original engines to be found in flying condition. It's got an Allison V-1710 instead. 

 

The article's got nice pics, too.

 

http://vintageaviationecho.com/flying-the-il-2/

Edited August 23, 2017 by Venturi

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Really good article!

 

(A curiosity about the AM-38, the crew which restored the second flying Il-2 did get one exemplar back to flying condition but there was a catch - a very short factory-specified TBO meant that the aircraft wouldn't have made it through Russian certification procedures using it so the Allison was chosen instead.) Video of the engine here:

Edited August 23, 2017 by 216th_Lucas_From_Hell

[HR_Tofolo]

Thanks for sharing!

[unreasonable]

Very good find, thanks for posting.

 

Interesting about the instability in pitch - does the game version behave this way? I really do not have enough time in it to be able to tell.

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Very good find, thanks for posting.

 

Interesting about the instability in pitch - does the game version behave this way? I really do not have enough time in it to be able to tell.

The il2 in game is very unstable in pitch. With the rear gunner it's even worse.

[MadisonV44]

Many Thanks for sharing 

Fantastic pictures and feedback from real pilots 

 

[Boaty-McBoatface]

Thanks for the link. Fantastic read.

 

The highest produced plane in history; 36,000 of these damn planes made and yet barely anything left remaining to tell the tale. Incredible.

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Thanx!! great article and Amazing pics... !

[Finkeren]

Great read and a very interesting perspective.

 

However, when reading this we have to keep three factors in mind:

 

1. Pretty much nothing about the engine operation is relevant to the actual IL-2.

 

2. While this aircraft likely is somewhat lighter than a fully loaded IL-2M during WW2, it is still severely underpowered having no 1720hp AM-38F but merely an Alison 113 operating at just 45''. According to Wikipedia, the 113 developed at most 1600hp at 60'', so the power that this restored bird has to work with is greatly reduced.

 

3. The plane is put together from several (4?) different aircraft in varying states of decay. Some of the instability described could well be down to the fact, that it's a bit of a Frankenplane and a lot of parts probably needed a bit of fitting to actually hold together.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The lack of gunner makes a huge difference - the whole purpose of the arrow wing redesign was to compensate for the shift in CoG.

[Finkeren]

The lack of gunner makes a huge difference - the whole purpose of the arrow wing redesign was to compensate for the shift in CoG.

The shift in CoG was not so much from the gunner himself, nor his gun. It was mostly a result of the extention of the armoured cockpit rearwards, something that isn't changed on this aircraft.

[blitze]

Interesting over the weekend I was at a kebab grill in my local town in Finland and eating my meal for lunch where by they had a doco on TV about the war and they showed nice B&W film of Il2 flying overhead as well as Soviet troops lying low on backs of T34's racing into battle.  It was interesting to see and good quality footage as well.

 

The Finns often show doco's on the war on their gov tv channel Yle 1

 

Pity there isn't a decent restored Il2 with original power plant in service.

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

Ditto on the engine stuff. Great pictures!

[SCG_Tzigy]

very nice article

[Venturi]

Great read and a very interesting perspective.

 

However, when reading this we have to keep three factors in mind:

 

1. Pretty much nothing about the engine operation is relevant to the actual IL-2. I don't know, it seems pretty accurate to the original. You do know that you can operate one type of engine, with another type of engine's controls, right? Engines are just powerplants, it's the peripherals which do the controlling...

 

2. While this aircraft likely is somewhat lighter than a fully loaded IL-2M during WW2, it is still severely underpowered having no 1720hp AM-38F but merely an Alison 113 operating at just 45''. According to Wikipedia, the 113 developed at most 1600hp at 60'', so the power that this restored bird has to work with is greatly reduced. Of course. Did you also note, that the pilots were routinely using 45"Hg manifold pressure on the Allison, without the engine blowing up? By the way, this is equal to about 1.52ata / bar - good octane fuel means a lot. 

 

3. The plane is put together from several (4?) different aircraft in varying states of decay. Some of the instability described could well be down to the fact, that it's a bit of a Frankenplane and a lot of parts probably needed a bit of fitting to actually hold together. I think it would never have been certified to leave the ground if this was the case.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Venturi

[Elphinstone]

Thanks for sharing!

[Wulf]

Great read and a very interesting perspective.

 

However, when reading this we have to keep three factors in mind:

 

1. Pretty much nothing about the engine operation is relevant to the actual IL-2.

 

2. While this aircraft likely is somewhat lighter than a fully loaded IL-2M during WW2, it is still severely underpowered having no 1720hp AM-38F but merely an Alison 113 operating at just 45''. According to Wikipedia, the 113 developed at most 1600hp at 60'', so the power that this restored bird has to work with is greatly reduced.

 

3. The plane is put together from several (4?) different aircraft in varying states of decay. Some of the instability described could well be down to the fact, that it's a bit of a Frankenplane and a lot of parts probably needed a bit of fitting to actually hold together.

 

 

 

Geeez Fink, be reasonable.  The difference between the power output of the two engines appears to be about 120hp.  On an air frame of that size it would make very little difference at all.  And of course the Allison powered IL-2 doesn't have to carry ordinance.

 

As for your frankenplane comment; I suspect the restored aircraft is probably one of the most carefully [re]constructed aircraft of its type ever built. 

[Finkeren]

Geeez Fink, be reasonable.  The difference between the power output of the two engines appears to be about 120hp.  On an air frame of that size it would make very little difference at all.  And of course the Allison powered IL-2 doesn't have to carry ordinance.

 

The Allison 113 develops 1600hp from WEP at 60''. This plane is flown at a maximum of 45'', which according to the article corresponds to approximately 50% throttle. Clearly the engine is developing nowhere close to 1600hp. Nothing wrong with that, obviously such a rare relic has to be flown under the absolute safest conditions. Still it means, that this can provide us no direct insight into how the IL-2 would handle under full power.

 

 

 

As for your frankenplane comment; I suspect the restored aircraft is probably one of the most carefully [re]constructed aircraft of its type ever built. 

 

Yeah it might be, and I might be too pessimistic about the whole restoration process, but still, when you assemble a plane from parts from 4 different aircraft, all of which were decaying wrecks, there is just no way, that it didn't take a lot of fiddling and fitting to assemble into a flying aircraft. Maybe it has had no detrimental effects on the aircraft, but how can we be sure about that?

 

None of this is to bash at either the article or the reconstruction work - it's an amazing accomplishment worthy of the highest praise. I just want to urge caution in trying to draw conclusions about the historical performance and handling of the IL-2 from this reconstruction.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Finkeren

[Brano]

Both original Mikulin and actual Allison has many differences in weight,displacement,rpm and MP,propellor etc.No idea how much difference it would make in aircraft "behaviour". Well,Buchon is not Emil,or is it? Our Avia S-199 with Jumo-211 wasnt considered as equal to Gustav at all :D

 

But I have a question for experts on Allison engines.Type 113 should have LH rotation.Is it the rotation of crankshaft?

I found for AM-38F that crankshaft rotation was RH,but propellor (thru reductor) LH.Seeing as from cockpit (or from direction of supercharger as written in tech spec)

[Farky]

But I have a question for experts on Allison engines.Type 113 should have LH rotation.Is it the rotation of crankshaft? I found for AM-38F that crankshaft rotation was RH,but propellor (thru reductor) LH.Seeing as from cockpit (or from direction of supercharger as written in tech spec)

 

V-1710-113 is same as AM-38F - LH propeller rotation, RH crankshaft rotation.

[Venturi]

See attached

 

 

Something to keep in mind. It doesn't matter which way the prop turns - unless the airframe has asymmetrical airfoils... like the Buchon... or you have two engines... like the Lightning.

[Brano]

Thanks for the replies Farky and Venturi